TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Graf v. United States

Graf v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 54 (Ct. Cl. 1938)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
United States Court of Claims · Federal Specialty Courts
Decided
July 5, 1938
Docket
No. 43347
Judges
Booth, Green, Littleton, Williams, Whaley
Citations
24 F. Supp. 5487 Ct. Cl. 495

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff brings this suit for a refund of taxes paid. The petition shows that the claim for refund was disallowed June 7, 1934, and the petition herein was filed June 8, 1936 — one day after the two-year period prescribed by law for filing. The last day of such period fell upon Sunday, and the only question in the case is whether this fact entitled plaintiff to file the petition on the day following.

The contention of the plaintiff is that as Sunday was the last day of the period for filing, under Rule 98(b) of this court the time was extended to the following day.

In William Frackelton v. United States, 57 Ct.Cl. 587 , this court passed on a similar question pertaining to the time when an appeal might be taken from its judgment and held that the appeal was too late, citing several Federal cases. The provision found in the rules of the court upon which plaintiff relies had not then been adopted, but we think this is immaterial. In Meyer v. Hot Springs Imp. Co., 9 Cir., 169 F. 628 , the court said that while courts may construe their own rules equitably and extend the time therein, “they have no such power as to statutes, and the decided weight of authority is that when the act is to be done within a time fixed by statute, and the last day thereof falls upon Sunday, that day will not be excluded, unless a different rule for computing the time is also provided by statute.” (page 629.)

This court may make rules to govern its own proceedings to the extent provided by law but it has no power to enforce a rule which changes the effect of a Federal statute.

We therefore hold that the petition was filed too late and that the motion to dismiss the case must be sustained. It is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1940: 11943: 11944: 11953: 11954: 11966: 11971: 11972: 11976: 11979: 11988: 119402026peak 1940 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. FERD. MULHENS, INC. v. Higgins55 F. Supp. 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1943)
  2. Rolls-Royce Limited, Derby, England, a British Company v. The United States and United Aircraft Corporation364 F.2d 415 (Ct. Cl. 1966)
  3. Carney v. United States462 F.2d 1142 (Ct. Cl. 1972)
  4. Rao v. Port of New York Authority122 F. Supp. 595 (E.D.N.Y. 1954)
  5. Wyker v. Willingham55 F. Supp. 105 (N.D. Ala. 1944)
  6. Buzick v. United States15 Cl. Ct. 289 (Ct. Cl. 1988)

Most recent

  1. Buzick v. United States15 Cl. Ct. 289 (Ct. Cl. 1988)
  2. Adams v. Commissioner72 T.C. 81 (Tax Ct. 1979)
  3. Pinckney v. City of Jersey355 A.2d 214 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
  4. Carney v. United States462 F.2d 1142 (Ct. Cl. 1972)
  5. Horton Capoeman v. The United States440 F.2d 1002 (Ct. Cl. 1971)
  6. Rolls-Royce Limited, Derby, England, a British Company v. The United States and United Aircraft Corporation364 F.2d 415 (Ct. Cl. 1966)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Meyer v. Hot Springs Imp. Co., 169 F. 628 (9th Cir. 1909) 23
Frackelton v. United States, 57 Ct. Cl. 587 (Ct. Cl. 1919) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list